Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 89 views

    18) Manchester Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeal PDF

    Uploaded by

    AlvinRelox
    This document is a Supreme Court resolution regarding a case involving the proper assessment of docket fees. The Court ruled that: 1) The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the original case because only P410 was paid as the docket fee, which was insufficient based on the damages of over P78 million alleged in the original complaint. 2) An amended complaint cannot vest jurisdiction upon the court if the original complaint did not properly confer jurisdiction due to insufficient docket fees. 3) The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the docket fee should be assessed based on the damages sought in the original complaint, not the amended complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    18) Manchester Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeal PDF

    Uploaded by

    AlvinRelox
    89 views5 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court resolution regarding a case involving the proper assessment of docket fees. The Court ruled that: 1) The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the original case because only P410 was paid as the docket fee, which was insufficient based on the damages of over P78 million alleged in the original complaint. 2) An amended complaint cannot vest jurisdiction upon the court if the original complaint did not properly confer jurisdiction due to insufficient docket fees. 3) The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the docket fee should be assessed based on the damages sought in the original complaint, not the amended complaint.

    Original Title

    18) Manchester Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeal.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a Supreme Court resolution regarding a case involving the proper assessment of docket fees. The Court ruled that: 1) The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the original case because only P410 was paid as the docket fee, which was insufficient based on the damages of over P78 million alleged in the original complaint. 2) An amended complaint cannot vest jurisdiction upon the court if the original complaint did not properly confer jurisdiction due to insufficient docket fees. 3) The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the docket fee should be assessed based on the damages sought in the original complaint, not the amended complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    89 views5 pages

    18) Manchester Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeal PDF

    Uploaded by

    AlvinRelox
    This document is a Supreme Court resolution regarding a case involving the proper assessment of docket fees. The Court ruled that: 1) The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the original case because only P410 was paid as the docket fee, which was insufficient based on the damages of over P78 million alleged in the original complaint. 2) An amended complaint cannot vest jurisdiction upon the court if the original complaint did not properly confer jurisdiction due to insufficient docket fees. 3) The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the docket fee should be assessed based on the damages sought in the original complaint, not the amended complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 75919. May 7, 1987.]


    MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. , petitioners, vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS, CITYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
    STEPHEN ROXAS, ANDREW LUISON, GRACE LUISON and JOSE DE
    MAISIP , respondents.

    Tanjuatco, Oreta and Tanjuatco for petitioners.


    Pecabar Law Offices for private respondents.
    SYLLABUS
    1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; NON-PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEE; RENDERS NULL
    AND VOID AND COMPLAINTS AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS WHERETO. The rule is
    well-settled "that a case is deemed led only upon payment of the docket fee regardless
    of the actual date of ling in court." Thus, in the present case the trial court did not acquire
    jurisdiction over the case by the payment of only P410.00 as docket fee. Neither can the
    amendment of the complaint thereby vest jurisdiction upon the Court. For all legal
    purposes there is no such original complaint that was duly led which could be amended.
    Consequently, the order admitting the amended complaint and all subsequent proceedings
    and actions taken by the trial court are null and void. The Court acquires jurisdiction over
    any case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint
    or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of
    the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended pleading.
    cdasia

    2. ID.; ID.; COMPLAINT; CONTENTS; AMOUNT OF MANDAMUS MUST BE SPECIFIED NOT


    ONLY IN THE BODY BUT ALSO IN THE PRAYER. All complaints, petitions, answers and
    other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in
    the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in
    the assessment of the ling fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this
    requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the
    record. The court acquires jurisdiction over any upon payment of the prescribed docket
    fee.
    RESOLUTION
    GANCAYCO , J .:
    Acting on the motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Second Division of
    January 28, 1987 and another motion to refer the case to and to be heard in oral argument
    by the Court En Banc led by petitioners, the motion to refer the case to the Court en banc
    is granted but the motion to set the case for oral argument is denied.
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

    cdasiaonline.com

    Petitioners in support of their contention that the ling fee must be assessed on the basis
    of the amended complaint cite the case of Magaspi vs. Ramolete. 1 They contend that the
    Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the ling fee should be levied by considering the
    amount of damages sought in the original complaint.
    The environmental facts of said case differ from the present in that
    1. The Magaspi case was an action for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel
    of land with damages, 2 while the present case is an action for torts and damages and
    specific performance with prayer for temporary restraining order, etc. 3
    2. In the Magaspi case, the prayer in the complaint seeks not only the annulment of title of
    the defendant to the property, the declaration of ownership and delivery of possession
    thereof to plaintiffs but also asks for the payment of actual, moral, exemplary damages
    and attorney's fees arising therefrom in the amounts speci ed therein. 4 However, in the
    present case, the prayer is for the issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction
    during the pendency of the action against the defendants' announced forfeiture of the sum
    of P3 Million paid by the plaintiffs for the property in question, to attach such property of
    defendants that may be suf cient to satisfy any judgment that may be rendered, and after
    hearing, to order defendants to execute a contract of purchase and sale of the subject
    property and annul defendants' illegal forfeiture of the money of plaintiff, ordering
    defendants jointly and severally to pay plaintiff actual, compensatory and exemplary
    damages as well as 25% of said amounts as may be proved during the trial as attorney's
    fees and declaring the tender of payment of the purchase price of plaintiff valid and
    producing the effect of payment and to make the injunction permanent. The amount of
    damages sought is not speci ed in the prayer although the body of the complaint alleges
    the total amount of over P78 Million as damages suffered by plaintiff. 5
    3. Upon the ling of the complaint there was an honest difference of opinion as to the
    nature of the action in the Magaspi case. The complaint was considered as primarily an
    action for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land. The damages stated
    were treated as merely ancillary to the main cause of action. Thus, the docket fee of only
    P60.00 and P10.00 for the sheriff's fee were paid. 6
    In the present case there can be no such honest difference of opinion. As may be gleaned
    from the allegations of the complaint as well as the designation thereof, it is both an action
    for damages and speci c performance. The docket fee paid upon ling of complaint in the
    amount only of P410.00 by considering the action to be merely one for speci c
    performance where the amount involved is not capable of pecuniary estimation is
    obviously erroneous. Although the total amount of damages sought is not stated in the
    prayer of the complaint yet it is spelled out in the body of the complaint totalling in the
    amount of P78,750,000.00 which should be the basis of assessment of the filing fee.
    prll

    4. When this under-assessment of the ling fee in this case was brought to the attention of
    this Court together with similar other cases an investigation was immediately ordered by
    the Court. Meanwhile plaintiff through another counsel with leave of court led an
    amended complaint on September 12, 1985 for the inclusion of Philips Wire and Cable
    Corporation as co-plaintiff and by eliminating any mention of the amount of damages in
    the body of the complaint. The prayer in the original complaint was maintained. After this
    Court issued an order on October 15, 1985 ordering the re-assessment of the docket fee
    in the present case and other cases that were investigated, on November 12, 1985 the trial
    court directed plaintiffs to rectify the amended complaint by stating the amounts which
    they are asking for. It was only then that plaintiffs speci ed the amount of damages in the
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

    cdasiaonline.com

    body of the complaint in the reduced amount of P10,000,000.00. 7 Still no amount of


    damages were specified in the prayer. Said amended complaint was admitted.
    On the other hand, in the Magaspi case, the trial court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the
    amount of P3,104.00 as ling fee covering the damages alleged in the original complaint
    as it did not consider the damages to be merely ancillary or incidental to the action for
    recovery of ownership and possession of real property. 8 An amended complaint was led
    by plaintiff with leave of court to include the government of the Republic as defendant and
    reducing the amount of damages, and attorney's fees prayed for to P100,000.00. Said
    amended complaint was also admitted. 9
    In the Magaspi case, the action was considered not only one for recovery of ownership but
    also for damages, so that the ling fee for the damages should be the basis of
    assessment. Although the payment of the docketing fee of P60.00 was found to be
    insuf cient, nevertheless, it was held that since the payment was the result of an "honest
    difference of opinion as to the correct amount to be paid as docket fee" the court "had
    acquired jurisdiction over the case and the proceedings thereafter had were proper and
    regular." 1 0 Hence, as the amended complaint superseded the original complaint, the
    allegations of damages in the amended complaint should be the basis of the computation
    of the filing fee. 1 1
    In the present case no such honest difference of opinion was possible as the allegations
    of the complaint, the designation and the prayer show clearly that it is an action for
    damages and speci c performance. The docketing fee should be assessed by considering
    the amount of damages as alleged in the original complaint.
    cdtai

    As reiterated in the Magaspi case the rule is well-settled "that a case is deemed led only
    upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of ling in court." 1 2 Thus, in
    the present case the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case by the payment of
    only P410.00 as docket fee. Neither can the amendment of the complaint thereby vest
    jurisdiction upon the Court. 1 3 For all legal purposes there is no such original complaint
    that was duly led which could be amended. Consequently, the order admitting the
    amended complaint and all subsequent proceedings and actions taken by the trial court
    are null and void.
    The Court of Appeals therefore, aptly ruled in the present case that the basis of
    assessment of the docket fee should be the amount of damages sought in the original
    complaint and not in the amended complaint.
    The Court cannot close this case without making the observation that it frowns at the
    practice of counsel who led the original complaint in this case of omitting any
    speci cation of the amount of damages in the prayer although the amount of over P78
    million is alleged in the body of the complaint. This is clearly intended for no other purpose
    than to evade the payment of the correct ling fees if not to mislead the docket clerk in the
    assessment of the ling fee. This fraudulent practice was compounded when, even as this
    Court had taken cognizance of the anomaly and ordered an investigation, petitioner
    through another counsel led an amended complaint, deleting all mention of the amount of
    damages being asked for in the body of the complaint. It was only when in obedience to
    the order of this Court of October 18, 1985, the trial court directed that the amount of
    damages be speci ed in the amended complaint, that petitioners' counsel wrote the
    damages sought in the much reduced amount of P10,000,000.00 in the body of the
    complaint but not in the prayer thereof. The design to avoid payment of the required
    docket fee is obvious.
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

    cdasiaonline.com

    The Court serves warning that it will take drastic action upon a repetition of this unethical
    practice.
    cdrep

    To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers and other
    similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the
    body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the
    assessment of the ling fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this
    requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the
    record.
    The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed
    docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest
    jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts
    sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the Magaspi case 1 4 in so far as it is
    inconsistent with this pronouncement is overturned and reversed.
    WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied for lack of merit.
    SO ORDERED.

    Teehankee, C .J ., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr ., Cruz, Paras,


    Feliciano, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ ., concur.
    Paras, J ., took no part.
    Footnotes

    1. 115 SCRA 193.


    2. Supra, p. 194.
    3. P. 64, Rollo.
    4. Magaspi vs. Ramolete, supra, pp. 114-115.
    5. Pp. 65-66, Rollo.
    6. Magaspi case, supra, p. 194.
    7. Pp. 121-122, Rollo.
    8. Magaspi vs. Ramolete, supra, pp. 199-200.
    9. Pp. 201-202, Rollo.
    10. Supra, 115 SCRA 204-205.
    11. Supra, 115 SCRA 205.
    12. Supra, 115 SCRA 204, citing Malimit vs. Degamo, G.R. No. L-17850, Nov. 28, 1964, 12 SCRA
    450, 120 Phil. 1247; Lee vs. Republic, L-15027, Jan. 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 65.
    13. Gaspar vs. Dorado, L-17884, November 29, 1965, 15 SCRA 331; Tamayo vs. San Miguel
    Brewery, G.R. No. L-17449, January 30, 1964; Rosario vs. Carandang, 96 Phil. 845;
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

    cdasiaonline.com

    Campos Rueda Corp. vs. Hon. Judge Bautista, et al., G.R. No. L-18452, Sept. 29, 1962.
    14. Supra.

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

    cdasiaonline.com

    You might also like